[flatearthexpert]

Please comment with an explanation for why you voted as you did.

If you think Earth is rising, please explain what you think is causing it to rise.

[Tron]

No flat earth spinning model?

[jack44556677]

@metatron

I was really surprised by that too!  It was my first post on this site, to tom, essentially arguing "how hard is it for flat earth supporters to integrate/accept a rotating plane?".  At the time it seemed a LOT simpler than the alternatives (such as aether, or things even more arcane/obscure).

I know better now, but I did not then.

The earth is stationary, and I argue that regardless of conceptions we should all arbitrarily agree to that by convention for sanity and simplicities sake.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's a common point of confusion, especially among people who ignore the mainstream FE movement and who gathered the brunt of their understanding from Eric "Dubay" and others on Twitter. Unfortunately, it leads them into an extremely simplistic view of FET, and one that brings us some bad rep.

[flatearthexpert]

5 voters for the idea that Earth is rising, yet not a single proposed explanation for what would cause that or how that works...

if you think Earth is spinning, please explain why you think that and what is causing that as well...

The notion that Earth is stationary still seems most plausible, since no coherent argument for motion, of any kind, has been made yet.

To reiterate, what causes this alleged rise of Earth?

[Pete Svarrior]

The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

Meanwhile, it is the idea that "things just fall down because they do, it's an inherent thing!" is the one that lacks any coherent argumentation. You're just a (possibly indirect) victim of Dubay's profiteering, unfortunate as it may be.

[SteelyBob]

The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

Not sure if this is straying too far adrift from the topic Pete, but that wiki article is flawed in several areas. The most striking is this complete misunderstanding of what power and force are:

The power source for gravity, which allows mass to pull mass, however, should be all around us, and its mystery inexcusable. Why should something that is allegedly all around us be undetectable by all of science?

Power, or the rate of doing work, is only required to exert a force over a distance. Simply exerting a force on something requires no power at all. So an object falling from a tower requires energy, yes, but that energy is merely the energy put into it by whatever carried it up the tower. In cases where the force doesn’t move the object, or where the movement is perpendicular to the force, such as in orbital mechanics, then no energy is required.

To accelerate the earth in a linear direction, and indeed presumably the sun, moon, and everything else, however, would require an enormous amount of energy.

[flatearthexpert]

The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

Meanwhile, it is the idea that "things just fall down because they do, it's an inherent thing!" is the one that lacks any coherent argumentation. You're just a (possibly indirect) victim of Dubay's profiteering, unfortunate as it may be.

Pete you have avoided my question twice now.

What is causing Earth to rise? You have yet to offer a single explanation, plausible or not.

As to your ignorance about inherent functions, aka fundamental interactions, physicists already recognize multiple. We could debate which ones are and are not more plausible, but the notion of something being a fundamental function of our reality is well founded and in no way incoherent. You may want to do some research on this subject.

[jack44556677]

@flatearthexpert

You seem to be a little confused about how forums work.  When you put forward a question, it is (by default) directed at all the people in the forum - not a particular person.  Pete isn't avoiding your question, nor was it addressed to them in particular.

What is causing Earth to rise?

The presumptive answer is the same miraculous and unscientific magic that causes all matter to spontaneously accelerate permanently (as described by popular incorrect equation)

The "cause" in both cases is a placeholder for actual science which has never materialized.  In the presumptive view, that placeholder is called "gravity" and in the tfes view it is called "UA" and may well have intrinsic connections to "EA" as well.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the presumptive view is "solid" and therefore other conceptions are not.

[JSS]

The presumptive answer is the same miraculous and unscientific magic that causes all matter to spontaneously accelerate permanently (as described by popular incorrect equation)

What incorrect equation is that?

There is nothing magic or unscientific about gravity.  If you are confused about how it 'accelerates permanently' that is simple to answer, it doesn't.

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.  They appear to 'pull' on each other without any apparent energy input, just as two objects appear to 'pull' on each other due to gravity.  But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.

[jack44556677]

@jss

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.

That doesn't exactly help any.  At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted.  Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).

Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do).  Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know.  There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.

But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.

On this we are in complete agreement.  Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous.  One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't.  I agree they are both poorly understood.

[stack]

@jss

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.

That doesn't exactly help any.  At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted.  Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).

Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do).  Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know.  There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.

But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.

On this we are in complete agreement.  Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous.  One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't.  I agree they are both poorly understood.

How would pulling 5 G's in an inverted loop in a fighter jet not be demonstrable of some of the forces a play when it comes to gravity? What alternate explanation might there be for a pilot under those circumstances?

[SteelyBob]

@jss

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.

That doesn't exactly help any.  At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted.  Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).

Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do).  Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know.  There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.

But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.

On this we are in complete agreement.  Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous.  One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't.  I agree they are both poorly understood.

Force is not energy, nor does physics require force to be a finite commodity, or to have a ‘source’. Force only expends energy (or if we’re being picky, converts it from one form to another), if it moves over a distance, when it becomes ‘work done’. Centripetal force does not require work to be done because the force is at 90 degrees to the movement, and thus the distance travelled in the direction of the force is zero.

[JSS]

@jss

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.

That doesn't exactly help any.  At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted.  Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).

This is a misunderstanding of how magnets (and gravity) work.

How exactly are magnets being 'constantly exhausted'?

If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.

If you hold two magnets close together you will have to constantly put effort into keeping them apart.  No matter how long you wait, the pull won't decrease, they don't wear out or 'expend energy' trying to come together.

[Pete Svarrior]

If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.

This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.

[SteelyBob]

If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.

This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.

True, but it’s not because a finite store of energy is being depleted by the exertion of a force. As I said above, forces only do work if they operate over a distance. That’s why bridges and buildings don’t need fuel to hold up their loads. They are exerting a force, but not doing work, so there is nothing being depleted.

[JSS]

If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.

This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.

Yeah, I was expecting this.   

Magnets degrade, this is different than the magnetic energy being 'used up' when attracting each other or metal objects.

Magnets degrade over time due to entropy as the magnetic domains randomly fall out of alignment, this is not the same as burning fuel or consuming electricity.

Magnets do not expend energy to hold themselves or other objects in place.  Again, if you hold two magnets close together in your hands you have to strain to keep them apart, but they are not expending any energy. Just like holding a rock over the surface of the Earth isn't causing the rock to expend energy to pull downward.

Both magnets and rocks will continue to pull without using any energy until another process degrades their physical structures.  Magnetic domains flipping, or the atoms spontaneously decaying in normal matter.

Edit:

Actually, forget all that.  The magnetic fields do NOT decay for a simple reason. A magnet's field is made up of tiny diopoles all aligned in the same direction. When a magnet 'degrades', those dipoles simply get randomized directions, but the magnetic fields do not go away, they are just disorganized.  The magnet will always contain the same amount of magnetic force, it's simply the directions that alter.

So magnetic force is never used up, it's just pointed in other directions.  There is no energy expenditure for a magnet to exert a force.  I think that's a more concise argument than my first above.  This is why waiting to post is never a bad idea...

[flatearthexpert]

@flatearthexpert

You seem to be a little confused about how forums work.  When you put forward a question, it is (by default) directed at all the people in the forum - not a particular person.  Pete isn't avoiding your question, nor was it addressed to them in particular.

Negative. I posed the question to all. But Pete responded once, avoiding the question.

Then I replied to him, and reiterated the question.

And he proceeded to avoid it again and instead resorted to a random and unsubstantiated attempt at a personal attack.

So I then asked him again, and he has now avoided it a third time, by responding to others in the thread but ignoring my now oft repeated question.

To be fair, nobody has offered an explanation for what causes Earth to allegedly rise. (because there isn't one)

So it's not just Pete.

but the fact that he adamantly claims there is much evidence for a rising Earth, despite any explanation for the cause of this alleged rise, warrants my repeated questioning of his (and the society's) apparent position on the matter.

The reason I find this to be important is because I know many people who have looked into flat earth, and have been turned away by positions they have come across on this website. the faq page discusses UA at length and yet offers not a single plausible explanation for it.

So when people like Pete repeat this nonsense about UA, unable to posit even a single possible theory for it's cause, I have no choice but to call them out.

I would welcome Pete, or any of the voters in favor of UA, to please explain what they think is causing this incredible alleged upwards acceleration.

[Pete Svarrior]

You are, quite deliberately, reframing the question. You asked what evidence there is for UA, and I provided you both with our documentation and an immediate experiment (use an accelerometer) to verify it. The cause of something being unknown (or, as of yet, only partially ascertained) does not preclude it from happening.

I understand that you dislike UA, and my invitation for you to provide a documentation of your own model, as an alternative to mainstream FET, remains open.

Magnets degrade, this is different than the magnetic energy being 'used up' when attracting each other or metal objects.

I don't disagree with you, but it does make the whole magnet analogy completely useless - if you "think about gravity as you would about magnets", you're gonna end up with a mangled understanding of gravity. They work for entirely different reasons, behave completely differently, and they do degrade (regardless of the cause, and regardless of the cutesie argument that we should ignore the net force of the actual magnet and instead just blindly sum scalar forces of individual particles). Your argument would stand better on its own, simply by discussing the RE gravitational model without the comparison.

[Tron]

On a more serious note, I have an idea to explain gravity and why the earth moves without any of us noticing it. Beneath the Ozone Layer, air pressure is Much greater then beyond it. There's a sharp drop off as pointed by other members discussing this topic. See "Flat earth inquiries into the firmament" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17181.msg224307#msg224307

This helps explain why the atmosphere moves with the earth (along with friction, momentum, gravity and other phenomina) and why we can't sense it. Also keep in mind, whether the the earth is flat or round, it still tilts or turns at 15deg per hour. That's nothing, at least that we can feel.

This also helps explain why satellites can traverse such a large distance around the earth without serious energy output. RE calls it an orbit, I think it's because the higher atmospheres of gaseous liquids do move in a whirlpool around the sun (whether it's the sun inward spiralling consumption of space fuel or the earth stirring things up). Planets also orbit in such a way without an engine. They just gently float in space following the liquid current of space. This is just an idea so far, I'm really looking for more ideas.